"Новичок SUMMER-2013"

Regarding the little sub-tournament "New Players" vs "Legends and Myths".

I'll reveal some organizational secrets.
The tournament happened thanks to our lead, Nestor Petrovich. He read about prize games with the "fathers" (vets), which Cash had once tried to organize a long time ago. To be fair, back then only one newcomer took the chance. Then Anton started pressuring me, like "come on, let's do it." The idea arose to make more games. Our "fathers" responded wholeheartedly and with interest.

We thought about the regulations for a long time and argued a lot.
Points in the team tournament. I had the thought of giving newcomers more than 1 point for a victory. You can write whatever you want; it's not a difficult task.
I put myself in the shoes of the NP captain. Right now, our score is 20-1. Would the newcomers feel better if I wrote 20-2? And what if, for example, there were 20 games—13 wins for LM and 7 wins for NP? Would we then write the score as 13-14 in favor of NP? If I were the newcomer captain, I would refuse such a handicap. I would feel ashamed and strange telling the viewers and fans that my team won by some mystical means, despite winning only 35% of the games. In sports, there should be equal opportunities from the start.
The newcomers already had a privileged position—they chose their opponents, the template, and the color. That is already quite a lot.

Regarding bonus points. By giving 1.5 points for a victory in the group, we proceeded from the fact that a victory over LM would be slightly harder to achieve than over opponents from the group.

...The only thing is, I think it's most unfair for Rockmachine, as it's precisely because of this innovation that he didn't make it out of the group, so I'll join The_'s suggestion regarding points for wins and draws.

Oh, this is a philosophical topic. One could write an essay titled "Reflections on the Utility of Auto-wins."
Rockmachine didn't make it out of the group not because of the innovation.

...During the game, I gave my opponent 3 autos, during which he offered me the victory...

The result—a loss of 0.5 points.

Ivor races down the road increasing stats and collecting artifacts... while losing, but the generous opp gives an auto... Since I took the auto, we agreed on a draw.

The result + 1 point.
A cruel lesson.
Generally, I don't see any connection between nobility and giving autos :confused: , although I cannot condemn Javdet; I would have offered a newcomer myself if it made sense...
I also feel bad for the player who gave 3 (three!!!) autos and as a result gave up a playoff spot to a player who received an auto...
So, the tournament regulations have absolutely nothing to do with it.

Perhaps it makes sense to consider that a game with LM only matters in the event of an equal number of points scored in the group, serving as an additional criterion after the head-to-head and personal meeting. i.e., results with LM wouldn't be counted in the group at all.

...it's a pity that an interesting game against the beast didn't happen because of a stupid throw or even a series of throws =(.

Yes, I also noticed that one of the main mistakes of newcomers is taking an impossibly high and unrealistic pace for themselves. You play according to the opponent, not according to your own capabilities.

Fourth, in the process of getting to know them, you realize that they are normal people, without all sorts of hang-ups (I confess, it seemed that way to me before, but I won't think like that anymore :smile38: )

I'll confess too... :smile41: Funny, the newcomers also turned out to be normal people :eek: , and not clones and cheaters, from whom we now reflexively recoil :smile11:

And finally, I would like them to promise, at least sometimes (well, once a week there :rolleyes: ) to play funkies with us, with a report of course :D , can you promise that?

Even if rarely... even once a week... to see you in our village...
Hard to promise, but it seems to me that some connections have formed... Just ping them :smile02:

Another idea came up, still raw.
Basically, the essence is that within the framework of the LM vs NP tournament, along with the newcomer, for example in a Skype conference, one of the LM representatives watches/advises, but does not play for the newcomer, but points out some mistakes, teaches the subtleties of the game, maybe suggests some game plan.
Perhaps such a bonus should be given not to all newcomers, but for example only to those who scored three or more points in the group, or to the top three winners.
If this idea could be refined and implemented, it would be wonderful and very interesting.

Ideas are floating in the air... About a month ago, one of our orgs suggested something similar to me.
It should be mentioned here (besides what HellLighT wrote) that the guys who play Heroes well are quite successful in real life. Many have interesting jobs, their own firms, families... There are real fathers, and even repeat ones. I reckoned that in total, the LM team players might have more children than there are players on the team. They have lives to attend to. Therefore, these people generally prefer participation over observation. Personally, I wouldn't take on running such a tournament primarily because I don't even know which of the "fathers" would agree to it. And I myself don't want to "manage" in Skype; the time limit wouldn't allow for detailed advice, and in a few words, there's no particular point. I think it's more useful to analyze the match after the game and then—independent work on mistakes.

And the summary. We play.